Civil Practice – Removal – Diversity Jurisdiction – Amount in Controversy – Increasing Damages

At the time of removal, plaintiff’s claimed damages did not exceed the $75,000 threshold required to give this court diversity jurisdiction. Defendant can point to no controlling authority to support her contention that removal is proper based on plaintiff’s reluctance to limit his future damages.

The court grants plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court.

This case, which was originally filed in state court, arises out of an auto accident between parties who are residents of different states. In response to defendant’s requests for admissions, plaintiff said his actual and punitive damages did not exceed $75,000, but that he was “continuing to incur damages as a result of this accident.” Plaintiff refused to expressly disclaim any right to recover in excess of $75,000 and further declined to accept a remittitur in the event of an award greater than $75,000. Defendant removed to this court, and plaintiff moves to remand.

The evidence before the court shows plaintiff’s damages failed to exceed the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal. Furthermore, defendant’s attempt to construe plaintiff’s reluctance to limit his future damages as an admission his claim was worth more than the jurisdictional amount at the time of removal is similarly unavailing. Defendant can point to no controlling law to support her contentions on this point. Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over this case, and remand is warranted.

Defendant may remove again if she learns that the case has become removable; however, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) prohibits removal more than one year after commencement of the action.
Inabinet v. Thomas (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-205-18, 6 pp.) (Mary Geiger Lewis, J.) 5:18-cv-00614. David Christopher Marshall and Shane Morris Burroughs for plaintiff; Rogers Edward Harrell for defendant. D.S.C.